KY Derby Adjusted Times 1948-Present

[Cratos]

It is always fun to ask yourself “what if” when comes to horseracing because we make our prognostication about which horse will win a certain race and afterwards we either jump for joy or reach in our pockets for more cash to play the next race.

Therefore I have put together a “what if” list of the Kentucky Derby winners over the last 66 years asking what each final time might have been given the surface resistance based on the coefficient of kinetic friction.

Contrary to what some might believe a racetrack surface is not mobile and therefore it is never fast or slow it is resistance. I am not trying to argue something that was proven true by Newton many years ago, but what I am saying is that once you understand that concept you will understand the effect of a racetrack surface on a horse’s speed performance.

This is a non-trivia calculation and it not done with “smoke and mirrors.” Anyone can do the calculation, but it does take an understanding of math and physics.

However I have done the work for you and the results are reflected in the attached chart.

[Saratoga_Mike]

A very interesting post - could you please explain how the final time was adjusted? Thanks.

[thaskalos]

Mine That Bird ran more than a second faster than Seattle Slew?

No wonder this is such a tough game to predict...

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mine That Bird ran more than a second faster than Seattle Slew?

No wonder this is such a tough game to predict...

Let's see how he's making the adjustments!

[TheGarMan]

Interesting comparison. I am surprised that in "actual time" Monarchos was so fast. (Second only to Secretariat) :eek:

[cj]

So Secretariat beats Slew, Bid and Affirmed by anywhere from 10 to 15 lengths, but only beat Sham by 2.5? Um, OK.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Adjusting times back to 1948 is heroic - I can't wait to see the formula for the adjustments.

[PhantomOnTour]

Accurate pace & speed figures are a great way to express "adjusted time" ;)

[Cratos]

Mine That Bird ran more than a second faster than Seattle Slew?

No wonder this is such a tough game to predict...

You have misinterpreted the chart. What the chart is saying is that on the Churchill Downs surface that was 1.16 seconds fast when Mine That Bird ran the Derby, its time would be adjusted from 122.66 final time seconds to 121.50 final time seconds.

However for comparison you must put Seattle Slew and Mine That Bird on the same surface and when that is done Seattle Slew time would be 121.04 seconds which would be faster than Mine That Bird adjusted time.

Incidentally isn’t that conceptually what every speed figure maker attempts to do; normalized final times.

[Cratos]

So Secretariat beats Slew, Bid and Affirmed by anywhere from 10 to 15 lengths, but only beat Sham by 2.5? Um, OK.

No, but there is a major difference in using the scientific method which is an orderly and efficient way of analyzing physical situations as oppose to its counterpoint, the trial and error method,

[Cratos]

Interesting comparison. I am surprised that in "actual time" Monarchos was so fast. (Second only to Secretariat) :eek:

The times are from the DRF historical charts of the Derby.

[PhantomOnTour]

An interesting project would be for Beyer or TimeformUS to go back and make speed figs for each Derby that preceded their existence.
Par research is necessary but chart archives go pretty far back.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You have misinterpreted the chart. What the chart is saying is that on the Churchill Downs surface that was 1.16 seconds fast when Mine That Bird ran the Derby, its time would be adjusted from 122.66 final time seconds to 121.50 final time seconds.

However for comparison you must put Seattle Slew and Mine That Bird on the same surface and when that is done Seattle Slew time would be 121.04 seconds which would be faster than Mine That Bird adjusted time.

Incidentally isn’t that conceptually what every speed figure maker attempts to do; normalized final times.

Right, please provide the calculation for the 1.16 seconds. I think it's amazing that you were able to do the calculations all the way back to 1948.

[Cratos]

An interesting project would be for Beyer or TimeformUS to go back and make speed figs for each Derby that preceded their existence.
Par research is necessary but chart archives go pretty far back.

You can get the charts and I have them for the Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont from their inceptions.

The Preakness charts are very interesting because at one time they were timed in 1/16th mile increments

[cj]

No, but there is a major difference in using the scientific method which is an orderly and efficient way of analyzing physical situations as oppose to its counterpoint, the trial and error method,

You are right, he would beat Slew bout over 3 seconds with your adjusted times, more than I thought originally. Sorry about that. He would have beaten Affirmed by 2.30 seconds. What bad luck for Sham. If he came around a few years later, he would have waxed those slugs.

[cj]

An interesting project would be for Beyer or TimeformUS to go back and make speed figs for each Derby that preceded their existence.
Par research is necessary but chart archives go pretty far back.

It would take a very long time to do that properly. Charts are PDF only. Sorry, but no thanks.

[thaskalos]

You have misinterpreted the chart. What the chart is saying is that on the Churchill Downs surface that was 1.16 seconds fast when Mine That Bird ran the Derby, its time would be adjusted from 122.66 final time seconds to 121.50 final time seconds.

However for comparison you must put Seattle Slew and Mine That Bird on the same surface and when that is done Seattle Slew time would be 121.04 seconds which would be faster than Mine That Bird adjusted time.

Incidentally isn’t that conceptually what every speed figure maker attempts to do; normalized final times.

You've lost me here...

I made the Mine That Bird - Seattle Slew comparison by using the ADJUSTED figures that you provided in the chart. Don't these "adjusted figures" already reflect the difference in the CD racing strip?

Mine That Bird's adjusted figure is 121.50...whereas Seattle Slew's adjusted figure is 122.90.

I have to figure that lowest is best...because Secretariat's adjusted rating is 119.85.

[cj]

You've lost me here...

I made the Mine That Bird - Seattle Slew comparison by using the ADJUSTED figures that you provided in the chart. Don't these "adjusted figures" already reflect the difference in the CD racing strip?

Mine That Bird's adjusted figure is 121.50...whereas Seattle Slew's adjusted figure is 122.90.

I have to figure that slowest is best...because Secretariat's adjusted rating is 119.85.

He lost himself. The -1.16 when Mine That Bird ran was a slow track, so he deducted the time. The positive numbers are a fast track, so he adds time to those. He clearly has Mine That Bird as the faster horse, comical to be honest.

Pure gold this thread, pure gold.

[thaskalos]

He lost himself. The -1.16 when Mine That Bird ran was a slow track, so he deducted the time. The positive numbers are a fast track, so he adds time to those. He clearly has Mine That Bird as the faster horse, comical to be honest.

Pure gold this thread, pure gold.

I am starting to believe that a very high I.Q. might not be such an advantage in this game...

[Cratos]

You've lost me here...

I made the Mine That Bird - Seattle Slew comparison by using the ADJUSTED figures that you provided in the chart. Don't these "adjusted figures" already reflect the difference in the CD racing strip?

Mine That Bird's adjusted figure is 121.50...whereas Seattle Slew's adjusted figure is 122.90.

I have to figure that lowest is best...because Secretariat's adjusted rating is 119.85.

It is apparent that you don't understand normalization. The adjustment is to what track surface each horse faced based on the mean resistance which establishes the coefficient of Kinectic friction between the horse's hooves and the surface.

Therefore the comparison come from putting both horses on the same surface with the their respective actual times and adjust ing according to the resistance.

This type of calculation is done frequently in many different industries and horseracing is just one.

[Cratos]

He lost himself. The -1.16 when Mine That Bird ran was a slow track, so he deducted the time. The positive numbers are a fast track, so he adds time to those. He clearly has Mine That Bird as the faster horse, comical to be honest.

Pure gold this thread, pure gold.

In all due respect we saw your weakness in math in another thread and you compounded that lack of understanding by saying Game On Dude uses less stamina, hence less energy by running fast .

Apparently a=f/m means nothing to you

[Augenj]

So Secretariat beats Slew, Bid and Affirmed by anywhere from 10 to 15 lengths, but only beat Sham by 2.5? Um, OK.

Sorry. Didn't see your previous post. Sham was very good as you implied.

[iceknight]

This normalization.. how do you decide that Big Brown derby was the reference track condition? Is this just an arbitrary choice.. or is the year you started this normalization calculation.. or did CD release some specific info that year.. or did you a soil quality and firmness test at CD that year? There has to be some specific reason. Or to dig deep, did ALL the dirt races that day play out in similar fashion? Or did all the dirt races over 1 mile unfold in similar fashion?

I look forward to seeing new methods and analysis... but..

Anyhow, as we await your answer(s)... it would immensely help if you keep the discourse dignified without all this posturing:
"This is a non-trivia calculation and it not done with “smoke and mirrors.” Anyone can do the calculation, but it does take an understanding of math and physics."
We just seek transparency. Not some black box calculation where you are doing us a favor by doing all the work and then ask us to accept your numbers.

[thaskalos]

It is apparent that you don't understand normalization. The adjustment is to what track surface each horse faced based on the mean resistance which establishes the coefficient of Kinectic friction between the horse's hooves and the surface.

Therefore the comparison come from putting both horses on the same surface with the their respective actual times and adjust ing according to the resistance.

This type of calculation is done frequently in many different industries and horseracing is just one.

Sorry...you are right. Whenever you post something...I just can't understand what you are trying to say.

Luckily...I can still understand the rest of the posters here -- so, I guess I'll be alright...

[Cratos]

Sorry...you are right. Whenever you post something...I just can't understand what you are trying to say.

Luckily...I can still understand the rest of the posters here -- so, I guess I'll be alright...

Your cynicism is well taken; I post here because I enjoy horseracing, not arguing.

[menifee]

This is interesting and could lead to debate. Thank you for your work Cratos.

[thaskalos]

Your cynicism is well taken; I post here because I enjoy horseracing, not arguing.

I post here because I enjoy horse racing too...but it helps if we post our opinions in a manner that we could all readily understand. This is something that you haven't yet quite realized.

It is easy to be abstruse. It's a lot more difficult to be clear...


"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles...but no personality."
-- Albert Einstein

[cj]

In all due respect we saw your weakness in math in another thread and you compounded that lack of understanding by saying Game On Dude uses less stamina, hence less energy by running fast .

Apparently a=f/m means nothing to you

You are clueless, as usual.

[cj]

Sorry. Didn't see your previous post. Sham was very good as you implied.

I realize Sham was very good, but I was being sarcastic. Cratos has him 10 lengths better than Slew, Affirmed, and Bid. I don't care how "correct" the formula used is mathematically, the results show there is a serious error somewhere.

[iceknight]

Your cynicism is well taken; I post here because I enjoy horseracing, not arguing. You seem more interested in arguing than answering simple questions regarding your choice of a reference position. Bah.

[Some_One]

He lost himself. The -1.16 when Mine That Bird ran was a slow track, so he deducted the time. The positive numbers are a fast track, so he adds time to those. He clearly has Mine That Bird as the faster horse, comical to be honest.

Pure gold this thread, pure gold.

I'm not about Slew's race, but MTB's derby was an extremely fast early pace as well (looked slower due to the wet track IMO), fast pace will equal fast final time.

[CincyHorseplayer]

This amounts to fun with numbers for horseplayers anyway right?So why not just enjoy that ride? Tenuous guesses all.

Reading this thread reminded me about how horseplayers think about the Triple Crown.There is such a deflation when talking about it.Reading Marvin Drager's "The Most Glorious Crown" this winter it showed that winning it doesn't really matter.It happened 3 times in the 70's with the greatest horse of alltime 1st.But overall it's crap to player.They don't care about it unless it's Secretariat type.I won't go into specifics for 20 pages of threads but other TC winners nobody gave a shit about.I think if Big Brown would have won it in that crop it would have been dismissed and pissed upon.

I like the crops every year because of their individuality.Same as I love people.If they wind up historically relevant I will be glad to say I followed astutely and enjoyed it.Nobody will apply great meaning to any of it til after the fact if it is great.That's for them.Bottomline who cares?The Kentucky Derby is a great race.We get at least an interesting cast every year.Good enough for me.You?

[cj]

I'm not about Slew's race, but MTB's derby was an extremely fast early pace as well (looked slower due to the wet track IMO), fast pace will equal fast final time.


Sometimes, but not always, especially when the race completely falls apart and is won by a dead closer. It will help that horse run its best time, but not the field as a whole. The best times are recorded when the best horses get favorable trips.

[thaskalos]

It is apparent that you don't understand normalization. The adjustment is to what track surface each horse faced based on the mean resistance which establishes the coefficient of Kinectic friction between the horse's hooves and the surface.

Therefore the comparison come from putting both horses on the same surface with the their respective actual times and adjust ing according to the resistance.

This type of calculation is done frequently in many different industries and horseracing is just one.

Okay...I've had a little more time to look at your Kentucky Derby chart...but I still can't understand what you are trying to say.

You have adjusted the "actual final time" of the horses, by the SSRA adjustment...which has brought you to the "adjusted final time" measurement. But now you say that this adjustment is still not complete...because it hasn't been further adjusted to insure the "sameness" of the racing strip.

Let's look at the Mine That Bird/Seattle Slew comparison again:

MINE THAT BIRD - 122.66....121.50....(-1.16)

SEATTLE SLEW -- 122.20....122.90......(.70)

You have obviously adjusted the actual final time (first column) by the SSRA (last column)...in order to arrive at the adjusted final time (middle column). This adjustment brings us to a point where Mine That Bird's adjusted final time appears to be 1.4 seconds faster than the adjusted final time of Seattle Slew.

But now you say that the racetrack factor must be addressed again...by again factoring the SSRA into the equation. You suggest that we further adjust Seattle Slew's adjusted final time by the difference between the two horses' SSRA (1.86)...thus bringing Seattle Slew's adjusted final time to a measurement of 121.04 -- (122.90 - 1.86) -- making Seattle Slew's performance now appear to be .46 seconds faster than Mine That Bird's.

But all we've accomplished by making this added SSRA adjustment is revert the ratings back to what they were at their original "actual final time" point (first column). We could have deduced that Seattle Slew's performance was .46 seconds faster than Mine That Bird's without all the adjustments back and forth. All we had to do was glance at the actual final times of the two horses (first column)...and we would have seen that Mine That Bird has an actual Derby final time of 122.66...while Seattle Slew has an actual Derby final time of 122.20. THERE is our .46-second difference right there...without any adjusting whatsoever.

Is your new figure methodology accurate?

I don't thinks so...because I have used the method in the exact same way that you have suggested here...to compare I'll Have Another's Derby performance with that of Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid. And I'll Have Another's Derby performance now seems to be .37 seconds faster than Seattle Slew's...and .57 seconds faster than Spectacular Bid's; both highly improbable scenarios.

And you say that I know nothing about "normalization?

I think the mistake is obviously yours...

[raybo]

I would be interested in knowing how Cratos can use "math and physics" to determine the resistance of a racing surface without doing physical tests of the surface itself, in real time. And to attempt to say that about races that happened in the past? :rolleyes:

[Augenj]

I would be interested in knowing how Cratos can use "math and physics" to determine the resistance of a racing surface without doing physical tests of the surface itself, in real time. And to attempt to say that about races that happened in the past? :rolleyes:
Ditto here.

[Saratoga_Mike]

In all due respect we saw your weakness in math in another thread and you compounded that lack of understanding by saying Game On Dude uses less stamina, hence less energy by running fast .

Apparently a=f/m means nothing to you

In all due respect, 99% of the posters on this board would rather rely on CJ's adjusted figures than yours.

Again, gives us the formula for the adjustments. Were the adjustments made in isolation or relative to other races run on the day?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I would be interested in knowing how Cratos can use "math and physics" to determine the resistance of a racing surface without doing physical tests of the surface itself, in real time. And to attempt to say that about races that happened in the past? :rolleyes:

Of course you would - you look at things practically. Even his theory doesn't hold up in this case.

[classhandicapper]

I'm always interested in something new. I wish I had a better grasp of what you are doing. But some of the results (assuming I understand them) fly in the face of typical speed figures and the accomplishments of the horses. Any "speed figure" can be inaccurate, but usually when both the figures and the accomplishments on the track say the same thing, you have a very good line on the horse.

[RXB]

In all due respect, 99% of the posters on this board would rather rely on CJ's adjusted figures than yours.


God help the other 1%.

[Cratos]

I'm always interested in something new. I wish I had a better grasp of what you are doing. But some of the results (assuming I understand them) fly in the face of typical speed figures and the accomplishments of the horses. Any "speed figure" can be inaccurate, but usually when both the figures and the accomplishments on the track say the same thing, you have a very good line on the horse.


I appreciate your interest, but what I did had nothing to do with the speed figure methodology except by coincidence. I am not posting to criticize or compare against the speed figure methodology and remember that is what it is, a methodology because to the best of my knowledge speed figures have never been declared a science.

The statistical application of normalization means adjusting values measured on different scales to an ideal common scale.

However because my preferred method of handicapping is the parametric handicapping model which allowed me to use normalization for this exercise and for the adjustments where I brought the entire probability distribution of adjusted values into alignment.

Also, someone posted how this can be done without “real-time” data; the answer is simply simulation. Boeing built the 777 airliner without a mock-up, the first time they ever undertook such endeavor.

Another issue is data mining; there are people who can and will get you data for virtually any conceivable variable you might have about horseracing if you are willing to pay for the data.

Therefore you can disagree with this methodology and that is fair because as I stated, it is not a science, but to go off the farm with obnoxious criticism is baffling to me.

And given that we wager in a pari-mutuel arena, anyone who disagrees with me should be happy when I wager because if their assertion that I am wrong is correct, they will win and I will lose.

[classhandicapper]

I appreciate your interest, but what I did had nothing to do with the speed figure methodology except by coincidence.

I understand that.

I have a limited understanding of what you are doing, but I've read enough of what you've said to be intrigued by some of it.

The problem I have is with the results. IMO, a method can't just be grounded in sound mathematics, physics etc.. It has to produce results that indicate it works well enough to accept for wagering.

If the method is suggesting that Mine That Bird ran a better race than Seattle Slew in the Derby (to use the example mentioned in the thread) it doesn't pass the smell test for most of us. Their relative accomplishments before and after the race suggest something entirely different. That doesn't mean the entire concept and methodology are wrong. But it's very difficult to communicate when you aren't putting things in terms that some of us can understand.

[thaskalos]

I understand that.

I have a limited understanding of what you are doing, but I've read enough of what you've said to be intrigued by some of it.

The problem I have is with the results. IMO, a method can't just be grounded in sound mathematics, physics etc.. It has to produce results that indicate it works well enough to accept for wagering.

If the method is suggesting that Mine That Bird ran a better race than Seattle Slew in the Derby (to use the example mentioned in the thread) it doesn't pass the smell test for most of us. Their relative accomplishments before and after the race suggest something entirely different. That doesn't mean the entire concept and methodology are wrong. But it's very difficult to communicate when you aren't putting things in terms that some of us can understand.

Of course not.

It is quite possible that Cratos's methodology is sound...and that the mathematics behind it are solid -- even though the experiment carried out on the race track seems to suggest otherwise.

Who is to say that I'll Have Another didn't really run a better Derby than either Seattle Slew or Spectacular Bid?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Of course not.

It is quite possible that Cratos's methodology is sound...and that the mathematics behind it are solid -- even though the experiment carried out on the race track seems to suggest otherwise.

Who is to say that I'll Have Another didn't really run a better Derby than either Seattle Slew or Spectacular Bid?

Anyone with any knowledge of racing?

[thaskalos]

Anyone with any knowledge of racing?
I just had a thought...and please don't quickly dismiss it without giving it a thought of your own:

Maybe THIS is the reason why only 1-2% of the race-betting public emerge victorious from this game. The masses often draw erroneous conclusions...based on sketchy evidence that they all hastingly agree on.

You are absolutely right...everyone with any knowledge of racing would have to think that Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid ran faster Derbies than I'll Have Another. But how could that sort of knowledge benefit anyone...when it is so commonly shared?

The REAL money is in possessing the type of knowledge that CRATOS seems to possess. Can you imagine the price that he would get on I'll Have Another...if these three horses actually met on the track?

Isn't it commonly taught that the winning gamblers zig when others zag?

[Saratoga_Mike]

The REAL money is in possessing the type of knowledge that CRATOS seems to possess. Can you imagine the price that he would get on I'll Have Another...if these three horses actually met on the track?

Isn't it commonly taught that the winning gamblers zig when others zag?

He's either struck the Holy Grail of handicapping or he's posted a bunch of random variants in a spreadsheet. I'll let you decide.

[thaskalos]

He's either struck the Holy Grail of handicapping or he's posted a bunch of random variants in a spreadsheet. I'll let you decide.

I don't know WHAT he did...and I fear that I'll never know...because I think I inadvertently offended him when I tried to engage him in further conversation.

My loss...no doubt...

[raybo]

Gus, I don't think we are saying that Cratos' method cannot show a long term profit, because he certainly might, given that he would end up on horses that the public discounts, often. However, his premise being sound, that surface resistance is a valuable factor, if we actually were able to calculate it, his "math and physics" will not measure that, IMO. Only a "physical" measurement of the surface, at the time of the race, would reveal the amount of surface resistance the track surface yields.

He mentioned datamining, which yields "generalized" results, not "specific" results, as his past Derby chart comparisons suggest. The surface resistance of those past races cannot be calculated mathematically, or via physics. So, in the "long term" he could very well have something of monetary value, but for day to day races one must expect great variance in the method's performance, and one would necessarily have to have a very large bankroll, much self discipline, and the patience of Job, to utilize it, with "real" money bets.

[Cratos]

I understand that.

I have a limited understanding of what you are doing, but I've read enough of what you've said to be intrigued by some of it.

The problem I have is with the results. IMO, a method can't just be grounded in sound mathematics, physics etc.. It has to produce results that indicate it works well enough to accept for wagering.

If the method is suggesting that Mine That Bird ran a better race than Seattle Slew in the Derby (to use the example mentioned in the thread) it doesn't pass the smell test for most of us. Their relative accomplishments before and after the race suggest something entirely different. That doesn't mean the entire concept and methodology are wrong. But it's very difficult to communicate when you aren't putting things in terms that some of us can understand.

The poster who posted the example that you referenced clearly doesn’t understand statistical normalization and is attempting to solve his lack of understanding with a trial and error method; incidentally there is no “smell test” to pass here because either you accept or do not accept which is fine by me.

But let’s use a simple illustration to clear the air.

The chart says that when Mine That Bird ran on the Churchill Downs strip it was 1.16 seconds slow (hence the minus sign) and when Seattle Slew ran the strip was .70 seconds fast.

Therefore if we take Mine That Bird’s actual time at 122.66 and simply normalized him with Seattle Slew on the same surface it would be 1.22.66 +.70 which would be 123.36 and given that we have Seattle Slew at 122.90 on the same surface he would have beaten Mine That Bird by 123.36 -122.90 = .46 seconds which is the same as the actuals.

However if we put Seattle Slew on the Mine That Bird’s surface we will have Seattle Slew at 122.60 -1.16 = .46 seconds over Mine That Bird.

In summation, this says that if we only had the two races to compare for the two horses we would've concluded through statistical normalization that Seattle Slew was the better horse by .46 seconds.

What each horse did during the rest of its career has nothing to do with the calculation because at the time of comparison that data didn’t exist.

If we would take the entire body of work of each horse we would probably have different results and from what we know, Seattle Slew would be more dominant.

Also in my calculations, I used PDFs which make the calculations a little more complex.

[thaskalos]

The poster who posted the example that you referenced clearly doesn’t understand statistical normalization and is attempting to solve his lack of understanding with a trial and error method; incidentally there is no “smell test” to pass here because either you accept or do not accept which is fine by me.

But let’s use a simple illustration to clear the air.

The chart says that when Mine That Bird ran on the Churchill Downs strip it was 1.16 seconds slow (hence the minus sign) and when Seattle Slew ran the strip was .70 seconds fast.

Therefore if we take Mine That Bird’s actual time at 122.66 and simply normalized him with Seattle Slew on the same surface it would be 1.22.66 +.70 which would be 123.36 and given that we have Seattle Slew at 122.90 on the same surface he would have beaten Mine That Bird by 123.36 -122.90 = .46 seconds which is the same as the actuals.

However if we put Seattle Slew on the Mine That Bird’s surface we will have Seattle Slew at 122.60 -1.16 = .46 seconds over Mine That Bird.

In summation, this says that if we only had the two races to compare for the two horses we would've concluded through statistical normalization that Seattle Slew was the better horse by .46 seconds.

What each horse did during the rest of its career has nothing to do with the calculation because at the time of comparison that data didn’t exist.

If we would take the entire body of work of each horse we would probably have different results and from what we know, Seattle Slew would be more dominant.

Also in my calculations, I used PDFs which make the calculations a little more complex.

What would this methodology say if you compared I'll Have Another with Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid?

I'd like to further add that I have never pretended to be mathematically or statistically inclined. You, on the other hand, have often pretended to be a competent handicapper.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Gus, I don't think we are saying that Cratos' method cannot show a long term profit, because he certainly might, given that he would end up on horses that the public discounts, often. However, his premise being sound, that surface resistance is a valuable factor, if we actually were able to calculate it, his "math and physics" will not measure that, IMO. Only a "physical" measurement of the surface, at the time of the race, would reveal the amount of surface resistance the track surface yields.

He mentioned datamining, which yields "generalized" results, not "specific" results, as his past Derby chart comparisons suggest. The surface resistance of those past races cannot be calculated mathematically, or via physics. So, in the "long term" he could very well have something of monetary value, but for day to day races one must expect great variance in the method's performance, and one would necessarily have to have a very large bankroll, much self discipline, and the patience of Job, to utilize it, with "real" money bets.

From this post, you seem to follow C's thinking. Could you please post the formula for his adjustments? Thanks.

[iceknight]

I don't know WHAT he did...and I fear that I'll never know...because I think I inadvertently offended him when I tried to engage him in further conversation.

My loss...no doubt... Not sure if you are being sarcastic.. but Cratos opened the thread with an itch to start an argument, by mentioning physics-math, smoke mirros, non trivia etc..

Then later in the thread, he backs off saying what he is doing is a "methodology" and not science and claims he is baffled by the response from many.

He has still not answered why he chose Big Brown's derby as the non-adjusted reference.. or maybe I am too stupid and am missing the reason.. can anyone help me out?

lastly, he attacks (in his words), the math skills of others when he has himself in past threads shown he does not know the difference between the 1st and 2nd time derivative of velocity.

If he actually gives a nice explanation we would all appreciate it, but instead he is hiding behind a black box. Sorry, I will gladly meet him at the parimutuel windows.. but he has not made any predictions either. Contrast this with a clear pedigree based analysis that was given by turninitforhome before the I'll Have Another derby. Yes, it might've seemed like a hunch, but he called IHA after the Robert Lewis itself and stuck to him.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Ice, nice summary.

[thaskalos]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic.. but Cratos opened the thread with an itch to start an argument, by mentioning physics-math, smoke mirros, non trivia etc..

Then later in the thread, he backs off saying what he is doing is a "methodology" and not science and claims he is baffled by the response from many.

He has still not answered why he chose Big Brown's derby as the non-adjusted reference.. or maybe I am too stupid and am missing the reason.. can anyone help me out?

lastly, he attacks (in his words), the math skills of others when he has himself in past threads shown he does not know the difference between the 1st and 2nd time derivative of velocity.

If he actually gives a nice explanation we would all appreciate it, but instead he is hiding behind a black box. Sorry, I will gladly meet him at the parimutuel windows.. but he has not made any predictions either. Contrast this with a clear pedigree based analysis that was given by turninitforhome before the I'll Have Another derby. Yes, it might've seemed like a hunch, but he called IHA after the Robert Lewis itself and stuck to him.

Of course I am being sarcastic. What else can I be when the man presents himself in the way that he has in this thread? Do you think this is the first time that he has made exaggerated claims which he has been unable to back up with adequate proof?

He posts an obscure mathematical opinion...and then he is unwilling to expand on it when others question him about it.

What did he think would actually happen when he presented this Kentucky Derby chart to us? Did he really think that no one would ask him about it...or wonder about the methodology that he used to concoct it?

If he doesn't have an inclination to explain his work...then why present it here in the first place?

[thaskalos]

Gus, I don't think we are saying that Cratos' method cannot show a long term profit, because he certainly might, given that he would end up on horses that the public discounts, often. However, his premise being sound, that surface resistance is a valuable factor, if we actually were able to calculate it, his "math and physics" will not measure that, IMO. Only a "physical" measurement of the surface, at the time of the race, would reveal the amount of surface resistance the track surface yields.

He mentioned datamining, which yields "generalized" results, not "specific" results, as his past Derby chart comparisons suggest. The surface resistance of those past races cannot be calculated mathematically, or via physics. So, in the "long term" he could very well have something of monetary value, but for day to day races one must expect great variance in the method's performance, and one would necessarily have to have a very large bankroll, much self discipline, and the patience of Job, to utilize it, with "real" money bets.
I thought it would be obvious that I was only being sarcastic...and I apologize for the confusion. I don't agree with Cratos's methodology here...I don't understand what he is doing...I don't think he is even close to the handicapper that he thinks he is...and I don't anticipate any sort of clarification about this "methodology" coming from him anytime soon.

It has become painfully obvious to me that Cratos is nothing but an intellectual snob. He teases us with his statistical knowledge without any inclination to engage in any sort of conversation...just to satisfy his high opinion of himself.

[Cratos]

What would this methodology say if you compared I'll Have Another with Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid?

I'd like to further add that I have never pretended to be mathematically or statistically inclined. You, on the other hand, have often pretended to be a competent handicapper.

I love your choice of words "pretended." I never pretended to be anything, but it is funny how these posts go astray when egos become involved.

It is not personal, but you didn't know what you were doing and wouldn't admit it.

However we are dealing in anonymity and this will pass. Your life will go on and so will mine; and we both will be the better for it.

Keeping posting on this subject and you might draw a large crowd and then what?

[thaskalos]

I love your choice of words "pretended." I never pretended to be anything, but it is funny how these posts go astray when egos become involved.

It is not personal, but you didn't know what you were doing and wouldn't admit it.

However we are dealing in anonymity and this will pass. Your life will go on and so will mine; and we both will be the better for it.

Keeping posting on this subject and you might draw a large crowd and then what?

I have proclaimed my mathematical and statistical ignorance repeatedly on this board...not only in this thread -- but in others as well.

Would I do that if I am trying to impress?

[raybo]

From this post, you seem to follow C's thinking. Could you please post the formula for his adjustments? Thanks.

Excuse me, but you seem to be grouping me in with Cratos' calculation for surface resistance method, which is incorrect. The only thing I agree with Cratos on, in this thread, is that if one actually knew how much surface resistance each past race was run on, then a truer calculation of adjusted times, and subsequently pace and speed figs, could be made.

However, his "math and physics" will not accomplish that, for specific days/races.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I love your choice of words "pretended." I never pretended to be anything, but it is funny how these posts go astray when egos become involved.

Keeping posting on this subject and you might draw a large crowd and then what?

Thask and big ego? You have the wrong poster.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Excuse me, but you seem to be grouping me in with Cratos' calculation for surface resistance method, which is incorrect. The only thing I agree with Cratos on, in this thread, is that if one actually knew how much surface resistance each past race was run on, then a truer calculation of adjusted times, and subsequently pace and speed figs, could be made.

However, his "math and physics" will not accomplish that, for specific days/races.

Sorry - I legitimately thought you followed his argument and his calcs. Given he refuses to post his calcs, I thought you could help us. Sorry for the confusion. Actually, if you have any idea how he's coming up with his numbers, please post. Thx.

[thaskalos]

Excuse me, but you seem to be grouping me in with Cratos' calculation for surface resistance method, which is incorrect. The only thing I agree with Cratos on, in this thread, is that if one actually knew how much surface resistance each past race was run on, then a truer calculation of adjusted times, and subsequently pace and speed figs, could be made.

However, his "math and physics" will not accomplish that, for specific days/races.
My memory might be failing me here...but didn't Cratos once maintain that such calculations would be highly suspect without knowing the weight of the actual horse?

Or am I mistaking him with someone else?

[Saratoga_Mike]

My memory might be failing me here...but didn't Cratos once maintain that such calculations would be highly suspect without knowing the weight of the actual horse?

Or am I mistaking him with someone else?

You memory does not fail you.

[raybo]

I thought it would be obvious that I was only being sarcastic...and I apologize for the confusion. I don't agree with Cratos's methodology here...I don't understand what he is doing...I don't think he is even close to the handicapper that he thinks he is...and I don't anticipate any sort of clarification about this "methodology" coming from him anytime soon.

It has become painfully obvious to me that Cratos is nothing but an intellectual snob. He teases us with his statistical knowledge without any inclination to engage in any sort of conversation...just to satisfy his high opinion of himself.

I think it's quite clear what Cratos' method is attempting to do, measure the surface resistance of a track. However, like you, I don't believe that datamining, nor math and physics algorithms, will yield that result, many other things must be included, some of which are not publicly available, nor have they ever been available to the public. Now, if someone has the racing equivalent of golf's "stimp" readings, that information would be invaluable in adjusting raw times, because one would certainly know if a surface is/was truly fast or slow. However, one would also have to have that "reading" for every race, for every horse, entered in today's field. Not available to my knowledge. One cannot simply "calculate" that reading using math, physics, databases, or any other method, without having the physical surface resistance reading from all those past races.

I don't know what his calculations involve, nor do I need to know that, I only need to know that no amount of datamining will reveal that true resistance value. Many "estimate" the speed of races, post race, but they are just "estimations", and many times wrong to one degree or another. A daily variant, whether calculated/observed personally, or from a public source, would probably yield the same value as Cratos' method does.

[raybo]

Gus, I don't think we are saying that Cratos' method cannot show a long term profit, because he certainly might, given that he would end up on horses that the public discounts, often. However, his premise being sound, that surface resistance is a valuable factor, if we actually were able to calculate it, his "math and physics" will not measure that, IMO. Only a "physical" measurement of the surface, at the time of the race, would reveal the amount of surface resistance the track surface yields.

He mentioned datamining, which yields "generalized" results, not "specific" results, as his past Derby chart comparisons suggest. The surface resistance of those past races cannot be calculated mathematically, or via physics. So, in the "long term" he could very well have something of monetary value, but for day to day races one must expect great variance in the method's performance, and one would necessarily have to have a very large bankroll, much self discipline, and the patience of Job, to utilize it, with "real" money bets.

To make my statements in this thread more clear, the bolded portion my previous post is the only thing in which I agree with Cratos, in this thread.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think it's quite clear what Cratos' method is attempting to do, measure the surface resistance of a track. However, like you, I don't believe that datamining, nor math and physics algorithms, will yield that result, many other things must be included, some of which are not publicly available, nor have they ever been available to the public. Now, if someone has the racing equivalent of golf's "stimp" readings, that information would be invaluable in adjusting raw times, because one would certainly know if a surface is/was truly fast or slow. However, one would also have to have that "reading" for every race, for every horse, entered in today's field. Not available to my knowledge. One cannot simply "calculate" that reading using math, physics, databases, or any other method, without having the physical surface resistance reading from all those past races.

I don't know what his calculations involve, nor do I need to know that, I only need to know that no amount of datamining will reveal that true resistance value. Many "estimate" the speed of races, post race, but they are just "estimations", and many times wrong to one degree or another. A daily variant, whether calculated/observed personally, or from a public source, would probably yield the same value as Cratos' method does.

Good post. Question: if we had the physical surface resistance reading, that would just be PART of solving the equation, correct? For example, most colts/horses will run faster in 80 degree humidity than 35 degree weather. How would a physical surface resistance reading adjust for this? What about a strong headwind?

[raybo]

Good post. Question: if we had the physical surface resistance reading, that would just be PART of solving the equation, correct? For example, most colts/horses will run faster in 80 degree humidity than 35 degree weather. How would a physical surface resistance reading adjust for this? What about a strong headwind?

Of course, we would still be missing data that must be known to accurately calculate quality adjusted times. We need to know the weight of each horse, we need to know the length of each horse and exactly how many lengths each horse was behind the leader at each call (not visual guesses as we currently have at tracks that don't use Trakus data), we need to know the affect that wind had on each horse, during each fraction, we need to know every event of hinderance that each horse encountered throughout each race, etc., etc., the list goes on and on.

But, if we had a "true" measure of the resistance of the surface, that data would make our adjustments and derivatives more accurate, and more comparable.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Thanks Raybo - you explained it better than Cratos.

[thaskalos]

Of course, we would still be missing data that must be known to accurately calculate quality adjusted times. We need to know the weight of each horse, we need to know the length of each horse and exactly how many lengths each horse was behind the leader at each call (not visual guesses as we currently have at tracks that don't use Trakus data), we need to know the affect that wind had on each horse, during each fraction, we need to know every event of hinderance that each horse encountered throughout each race, etc., etc., the list goes on and on.

But, if we had a "true" measure of the resistance of the surface, that data would make our adjustments and derivatives more accurate, and more comparable.
The main thing, IMO...is that we must eventually realize that we are playing a game in which precision beyond a certain point can simply not be expected. In fact...it is doubtful that the word "precision" can even be USED when talking about this game that we have chosen.

We can fantasize all we want about using intricate calculations to solve the race track puzzle...but we must also realize that we are playing a game in which the distances between horses are still measured in "lengths".

[raybo]

The main thing, IMO...is that we must eventually realize that we are playing a game in which precision beyond a certain point can simply not be expected. In fact...it is doubtful that the word "precision" can even be USED when talking about this game that we have chosen.

We can fantasize all we want about using intricate calculations to solve the race track puzzle...but we must also realize that we are playing a game in which the distances between horses are still measured in "lengths".

Certainly! But, then don't most of us here already realize that? We do our best to compare performances of horses, via pace, speed, power, class, pedigree, etc., but they are only "our best". We know that absolute accuracy will never be attained, and if it were attained, our paramutuel game would soon cease to allow any profit, for anyone. The fact that most of us "do our best", and yet end up on different horses, allows at least some of us to make a profit. I can guarantee, if I ever reach that "absolute accuracy", nobody on the planet will ever know how I do it! :lol:

[classhandicapper]

But let’s use a simple illustration to clear the air.

The chart says that when Mine That Bird ran on the Churchill Downs strip it was 1.16 seconds slow (hence the minus sign) and when Seattle Slew ran the strip was .70 seconds fast.

Therefore if we take Mine That Bird’s actual time at 122.66 and simply normalized him with Seattle Slew on the same surface it would be 1.22.66 +.70 which would be 123.36 and given that we have Seattle Slew at 122.90 on the same surface he would have beaten Mine That Bird by 123.36 -122.90 = .46 seconds which is the same as the actuals.

However if we put Seattle Slew on the Mine That Bird’s surface we will have Seattle Slew at 122.60 -1.16 = .46 seconds over Mine That Bird.

In summation, this says that if we only had the two races to compare for the two horses we would've concluded through statistical normalization that Seattle Slew was the better horse by .46 seconds.


Based on that it sounds like whoever ran the faster actual time ran the better race.

People are looking at the Adjusted Final Time column and assuming it is equalizing all horses for the track in the same way a speed figure would. By that standard, Mine that Bird ran faster (better) than Seattle Slew according to that column. 121.50 vs. 122.90

If that is not accurate, I think you would get a better response if you presented the data in a way that everyone else is used to. People want to see who ran the best race and draw conclusions about how accurately the figures reflect actual abilities based on their own views about those horses.

That would leave the discussion about how you could measure these things from years ago well enough to be comfortable with the results.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I see errors on both sides of the argument. For those who doubt Mine That Bird ran a faster Derby than Seattle Slew, he possibly did - the data is for one race, and does not encompass other efforts. MTB loved the strip that day.

As for Cratos, not only does he leave out his algorithm, but worse he does not provide us with assumptions/constants in his calculations. All 3YO crops the same, the surface has not changed, all horses travel the same distance, weather/wind variables held constant, etc. As a recovering meteorologist, I'm all too familiar with the errors of applying "statistical normalization".

Nonetheless, if his calculations went back 7 more years, then they should should reveal Whirlway's ass-kicking performance in the 1941 Derby being right on par with Secretariat's. If not, then his calculations are pretty much useless.

[raybo]

I see errors on both sides of the argument. For those who doubt Mine That Bird ran a faster Derby than Seattle Slew, he possibly did - the data is for one race, and does not encompass other efforts. MTB loved the strip that day.

As for Cratos, not only does he leave out his algorithm, but worse he does not provide us with assumptions/constants in his calculations. All 3YO crops the same, the surface has not changed, all horses travel the same distance, weather/wind variables held constant, etc. As a recovering meteorologist, I'm all too familiar with the errors of applying "statistical normalization".

Nonetheless, if his calculations went back 7 more years, then they should should reveal Whirlway's ass-kicking performance in the 1941 Derby being right on par with Secretariat's. If not, then his calculations are pretty much useless.

His calculation formula involves "mass", which we do not know. We can only guess at what horses weigh. Of course he's normalizing/averaging that too.